"what is your view on people wanting legacy servers?"- fan

"YOU THINK YOU DO, BUT YOU DON'T" - blizzard

yeah, sad its shutting down

wish they would host a vanilla server, they will never do it though.
pretty retarded that jagex can do it with 2007scape, with a like 8 man team while rs3 prob has 100, but blizzard can't.

Most epic WoW screenshot i've seen in a long time, nice!


as for legacy servers, yeah i'd like to see BC, wotlk, and MOP servers

the nostralious pvp server is it vanilla or what xpac? and is there arena? is 3v3 popular or only 2v2?


/EDIT Just saw they got shutdown cuz being sued by blizzard

This post was edited by ferf on Apr 7 2016 09:54pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuOYmqSF6OQ
"Have you ever thought about adding servers for previous expansions as they were then?"


People want to play old expansions, but the answer given (you think you do but you don't) is accurate for the question as it is structured. I think that we truly don't want Blizzard adding legacy servers.

People don't bother to think about the technical challenges that would come in a company trying to simultaneously host 2 versions of WoW. Blizzard would have to abandon new expansions or come up with a really ugly model of essentially competing with themselves (expending double the resources to host 2 games).

This post was edited by kayeto on Apr 8 2016 04:22am

Dude if runescape can do it, a company like blizzard can easily do this...

They are money hungry after all, aren't they? Why not milk the game for what it's worth

Submited this as a suggestion countless of times lol
Who knows but I dont think theyll do it.

ok, let's look at the details. You say they can do it, so how would they do it?

*Would players have one WoW installed at their computer, then connect to a server running version 6.2 (or whatever the current patch is) then have the option to choose a classic realm from the list of servers? If that's the model, that means Blizz would essentially have to rewrite vanilla wow for the 6.2 engine. Things have changed in the source code, making things works like they did before might be challenging.

*Or are you suggesting that players would have a unique install for every expansion they want to be able to play, then connect to different servers that are hosting different patches? In that case, blizz would have to host and provide support for discrete servers, thereby increasing their workload.

*Also, are you suggesting playing would pay one subscription fee to access any expansion they want? Or would the extra work of hosting a vanilla server be paid for by more sub fees? And is Blizzard going to be able to recoup their time spent putting this up by making people buy the expansions again for the new "classic servers"?

The more effort I take in looking at the details, the less feasible it seems. Rather than messing with the headache of hosting old expansion, the more logical way to handle it is the obvious thing that everyone wants and has been asking for years: just make the new expansions with the vanilla philosophy. It has been proven that more people liked the game the way it was before than like it now.

At one point, Blizzard had 10 million addicts begging for the privilege of buying their brand of heroin. Blizzard couldn't even retain the people they already had hooked. Activision is so bad, they can't even sell heroine to a heroine addict.

This post was edited by kayeto on Apr 9 2016 12:57am